(no subject)

[wavyarms]

Yes, I am posting a link about Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. It's an interesting article. What's your opinion? Is the author right about the way the press has crucified Aniston for refusing to have kids just yet?

Comments

[ex-a517dogg70.livejournal.com]

I haven't heard about the press crucifying Aniston, but then again, I wouldn't be the one to ask. But I do have some serious beef with the author.

"Jolie's role ... speaks quite terrifyingly to the way in which we seem to be in the midst of a cultural moment in which motherhood is revered to a dangerous degree."

I fail to see how respecting women who give up careers for a family is dangerous.

"...Jolie is cast as irresistible to a baby-hungry Pitt because of her natural maternal instincts (and, implicitly, her femininity)."

I also fail to see why the author doesn't realize that mothers are by definition feminine. Rebecca Traister seems to be saying something like "how DARE the media portray motherly women as sexy! The only women that are allowed to be sexy are the ones on "Sex in the City!" or something like that. She comes comes off as a real bitch. She's blasting Brad Pitt for wanting children before he's in his late 40s:
"Why is it such a crime that Aniston should want to get the good roles she's still offered and up her asking price before her female body and face begin to fall and age and literally lose their value?"
Apparantly she hasn't thought of whether Brad Pitt would like to play catch with his 10 year old kid before he has arthritis. Maybe Ms. Traister would be happier if all babies grew up in test tubes and were raised by nurses, so real people with careers didn't have to deal with them. Gah. I was barely able to get the intended point of the article because I started disliking her so much.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Well, now, hold on.

First of all, the first quote about how the media's portrayal of Jolie has changed is what I found most effective about the whole article. The media portrayed her as a freak for wearing black and admitting to self-mutilation and having tattoos and all this sort of thing, which was not fair. But it is also strange that once she got a child, she went from being portrayed as a strange freak to a wise and nurturing sage. In our culture in general, and in Hollywood in particular, motherhood is being extremely fetishized. If someone is a mother, it is assumed that they are also:
-a nice person
-down-to-earth
-imbued with spiritual wisdom
-more caring about other people in general (not just their child) than non-parents

Jolie is a concrete example of that fetishization at work. So, Traister isn't blasting the media for portraying mothers as sexy - she's blasting it for portraying them as sexier than non-mothers. And the author isn't making a comment on Jolie's choice (or, if she is, she shouldn't, b/c it detracts from her point.) She's making a comment on the media's response to that choice. Women should be able to choose to have a career or have a family and be equally respected - the author is arguing that the problem is that they aren't equally respected. Jolie, the mother, is being respected more than Aniston, the career woman.

As for Pitt, it's actually a perfectly reasonable thing to break up with someone because they don't want children and you do. It's a big issue, and one of the few that can't really be resolved so well with compromise. But it does show a certain lack of suavity to talk to reporters as though they were your friends, and complain about the problem. Keep it inside the family, y'know?

You'd think two people would hash out the whole kids problem before getting married, but that's just me.